Poll: Why does England still have a royal family?

[ScoTTyBEEE]

I'm definitely for keeping a monarchy. The Queen does a great job in representing our country, much better than any politician could ever do. Sure there are some bad apples in the Royal family, just like any other family - but as long as the main honcho is alright then I have no problem.

God save the Queen -ayiiiieet.

 

[DanielMMS]

You make it sound like swanning around the world as a millionaire & being treated like a god by paid lackeys is hard work - they dabble in a little charity work from time to time & get paid much much more than the charity workers who do it for free & live in poverty.

You really don't have any idea what the Royal Family actually do, do you?

 

[Burnsy2023]

I'm struggling to find even a half decent reason to keep a monarch in that post.

You make it sound like swanning around the world as a millionaire & being treated like a god by paid lackeys is hard work - they dabble in a little charity work from time to time & get paid much much more than the charity workers who do it for free & live in poverty.

I think you're trivialising the work they do. Being a head of state isn't a holiday, it's often hard work. I don't think it's a job I could do.

Thankfully as our older generations are dying off, our pro-monarchists numbers are thinning.

It think the likes of Will and Kate are more likely to give a new found popularity to the monarchy both home and abroad rather than it losing support.

 

[Participant]

'France and Russia'

Yeah let's be more like those guys!!

 

[Burnsy2023]

Could a mod add a simple poll asking if we're pro or anti monarchy?

 

[matt_fsr]

Thankfully as our older generations are dying off, our pro-monarchists numbers are thinning.

Are you sure?

While there may be aspects of the monarchy I dislike, as has been said many times before... nobody else seems to have come up with a cost-effective, or preferable replacement!

We certainly don't need yet another dumbed-down popularity contest and leadership race, to a presidential post that makes us no different from the vast majority of other nations.

I'm in favour of the monarchy because of what they do for the country, what they stand for, our history, and because in all fairness, there really is not a better option.

 

[platypus]

Thankfully as our older generations are dying off, our pro-monarchists numbers are thinning.

Its a shame that you have this attitude. Fortunatly William & Katherine will probably work wonders for the Royal Familys popularity.

 

[platypus]

The money argument is the least of my worries. I just don't believe in a monarchy.

I actually think it's quaint, and fuddy duddy and "nice". I do like that bit of it, from a purely touristic point of view and "traditional" point of view, then yes lovely and charming. As a figurehead, then yes, I can accept that. As an entity that has power - absolutely not. I think it's a farce the amount of fuss that they get.

However, other than that, I have absolutely no time or care for the royal family. Though it is nice to get an bank holiday this year- about the only thing that claws back something for me!

Don't get me wrong all you royalists, I will stand when the royal anthem comes on, and will be courteous and be respectful. However, I don't "recognise" their power or appointment.

Pfff, bugger off Frenchie. We don't want your kind of monarchy treatment over here .

 

[Cosimo]

I can settle this easily:

Carla Bruni > Prince Phillip

That's comparing like with unlike.

 

[DanielMMS]

As regards the charity angle, the affect of royal involvement is extraordinary. By way of example, I live on an island that has a Governor who represents the Queen. Like the Queen, his role is largely ceremonial - he has no real power, per se. But, if he is to attend a charitable event, you can guarantee that the great and good will attend in their droves and splash the cash to a far greater extent than would be the case otherwise. And he is just a representative.

 

[elmarko]

The royal family will not exist in 100 years - that I can be sure of, by then we will have "grown up" as a nation & will hopefully no longer feel the need to play "king and queens with princes & princesses".

LOL - it's so pathetic if you judge it for what it actually is.

I'll leave it to the servile cretins until we get to that stage.

 

[ScoTTyBEEE]

The royal family will not exist in 100 years - that I can be sure of, by then we will have "grown up" as a nation & will hopefully no longer feel the need to play "king and queens with princes & princelinesses".

LOL - it's so pathetic if you judge it for what it actually is.

I'll leave it to the servile cretins until we get to that stage.

Funny, I find your post rather pathetic too.

 

[panyan]

I can understand tourists that want to see the Buckingham palace and other palaces but wouldn't that be easier if nobody lived in it? I don't think they come simply because you have a royal family. They aren't going to get an audience with them anyway

how much media attention and tourism was generated over the Royal Wedding last year?

the amount it costs the UK to have the Royal family is nothing compared to what they generate in income for the nation - they are a great benefit to this country.

 

[elmarko]

Funny, I find your post rather pathetic too.

I stand in awe at the genius of this post.

 

[Participant]

The royal family will not exist in 100 years - that I can be sure of, by then we will have "grown up" as a nation & will hopefully no longer feel the need to play "king and queens with princes & princesses".

LOL - it's so pathetic if you judge it for what it actually is.

I'll leave it to the servile cretins until we get to that stage.

You're missing the point and also wrong. The Royal Family will still be here in 100 years.

 

[DanielMMS]

'France and Russia'

Yeah let's be more like those guys!!

The American system is by far the best example as is being proven at the moment by Mitt Tomney and all his fellow cronies . There they have the presidential system that wields the most power in the world yet behaves like a demogoguery rather than democracy.

 

[Uther]

As long as we can bring back a Stuart to the throne I'm fine with it.
Divine right of Kings...

 

[matt_fsr]

You're missing the point and also wrong. The Royal Family will still be here in 100 years.

Agree 100%. Heck, the way things are going William and Harry will still be around in 100 years!

 

[elmarko]

You're missing the point and also wrong. The Royal Family will still be here in 100 years.

Well, I hope you are wrong - but time will tell.

I'm not missing any point, if anybody would like to explain how the concept of succession by birthright & the idea of having an unelected head of state fits in with our modern understanding of democracy/equality I'd love to hear it.

I'm always up for a laugh.

I also find it amusing how people gloss over the hundreds of years of conflict causes by these parasites & seem to attribute the greatness of the nation to a few individuals.

People are simply viewing them through stained glass windows & thought the eyes of nostalgia - thankfully the younger generations were not so indoctrinated as the previous few.

 

[DanielMMS]

The royal family will not exist in 100 years - that I can be sure of, by then we will have "grown up" as a nation & will hopefully no longer feel the need to play "king and queens with princes & princesses".

Yes, how true . Something that has existed for the last 305 years (if you include just the British Monarchs) or 1,210 years if you start from Egbert is going to die out in the next century when we all "grow up". There are definitely some who need to "grow up".